Posted on 01/27/2006 12:56:47 PM PST by wagglebee
ST. LOUIS, Missouri, January 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Target pharmacist has lost her job for refusing to dispense or refer for the abortifacient morning-after pill.
“For me, life begins with two cells,” said Heather Williams, explaining that the so-called emergency contraception pill, Plan B by Barr Pharmaceuticals, often prevents implantation of a newly formed human embryo within the uterine wall – which, of course, constitutes abortion. The same mechanism is responsible for the sometimes abortifacient effect of the regular birth-control-pill.
According to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report, Williams has refused to dispense or refer for the abortifacient for the past five years while working as a part-time Target pharmacy employee. She argues that to refer patients to a dispensary where they can find them is equally immoral. “I just can’t be a link in the chain at all,” Williams said.
Williams, who is a mother of three, lost her job over the issue as of January 1. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Missouri. She says, however, that the blame for her dismissal belongs to Planned Parenthood, not the Target store. Planned Parenthood has spearheaded efforts across the US to mandate that pharmacists co-operate in chemical abortion.
Williams and attorney Ed Martin have appeared on television to argue that pharmacists are the scapegoats in the battle over Plan B. Martin is also the attorney for four Walgreens pharmacists from across the river in St. Louis, Illinois, who lost their jobs for the same reason. The four refused to abide by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s decree mandating that pharmacists dispense the abortifacient.
Blagojevich warned Illinois pharmacists in April to dispense the abortifacient morning-after pill or face legal backlash – despite a state statute that exempts pharmacists from participating in practices contrary to their religious views.
Williams said that Target forced pharmacists state-wide to sign a “conscience clause” last fall agreeing to dispense the abortifacient or refer to another pharmacy that does. She wrote the chain a letter December 1 telling them she could not sign the clause. “We had to make sure it was in stock, and even give directions to the store,” she said. “I would be a participant.”
Williams is losing her job even though the Target store where she worked has never stocked Plan B.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Walgreens Disciplines Four Pharmacists for Refusing Abortifacient Morning-After Pill Prescriptions
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120102.html
Doesn't matter, the job is the job. Her employer set the description for her job, it included something legal she wasn't willing to do, therefore since she wasn't willing willing to perform the legally acceptable actions necessary to perform the job as described by the employer she's gone. That's how employment works.
Am I to take it then, that you believe use or distribution of regular birth control pills should be legally curtailed?
So if a woman can't get the prescription, she may well let several weeks go by and then get a later, surgical abortion if she does turn out to be pregnant. I'm not sure why that's progress, frankly.
Here's the link to that complete story:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/F66D4B9D4D4E342E8625710300039083?OpenDocument
Apparently she was fired because she refused to accept Target Corp.'s requirements to refer customers if the Target store didn't stock that medication. There it is. She can find another job at a pharmacy that doesn't have that requirement. You work for someone on their terms, not yours.
And you have described precisely one of the contraceptive effects possible with use of ordinary birth control pills (and, I might add, only one of the contraceptive effects possible with use of Plan B) -- prevention of implantation in the uterine wall. Do you believe that use and distribution of regular birth control pills should be legally curtailed?
"What are the other reasons?"
I heard that Target was French-owned. Did you hear that Target was French-owned? {tongue firmly in cheek}
Good!
If she cannot do the job, she should find a different one.
>> Thank you. Yours is the only reply favoring her firing that has any logic or reasoning behind it. <<
I'm only noting that there are certain circumstances under which Target may have a legal justification for it. Employers generally have the right to choose what sort of business they want to run, but I'm all in favor of alerting the world to the fact that Target is acting reprehensibly.
Sure. They are pharmacists in the USA. They must all be atheists? Or maybe not.
What you don't seem to grasp is that this is a form of abortion!
You either believe that life begins at conception or you don't. You're line of thinking seems to favor abortion so long as the life being aborted "doesn't look like a baby yet."
Oh, Good Lord. Surely nobody still believes THAT silly story. Please tell me people are smarter than that.
>> No, it's about each job having a description and if you won't do the job described then you should get a different job. <<
"Williams said that Target forced pharmacists state-wide to sign a “conscience clause” last fall agreeing to dispense the abortifacient or refer to another pharmacy that does. She wrote the chain a letter December 1 telling them she could not sign the clause. “We had to make sure it was in stock, and even give directions to the store,” she said. “I would be a participant.”"
Sorry, but the early Christians were willing to die rather than sign such "conscience clauses." Sad to see Target aspires to become Imperial Rome.
"Oh, Good Lord. Surely nobody still believes THAT silly story. Please tell me people are smarter than that."
Oh, would that it were so. Around Christmas time, every Target post had at least one reply claiming that Target was French-owned. It was hilarious. The myth got busted in every thread, yet someone always posted it. It became a joke.
FYI, birth control pills are against my religious faith. You can do whatever you wish. It takes 3 to procreate: husband, wife and God. Some people fail to believe that. Oh well.
Does a cashier who opposes drinking have the right not to sell alcohol to customers?
The problem here is we have a governor making law, so it applies to all pharmacies in the state. I believe the governor did this by executive order.
Why, when she was in school did one of her professors tell her that a requirement of her job was to be complicit in the unjust taking of a human life?
One of these days, some entrepreneurial minded pharmacist is going to start an overtly pro-life pharmacy and make a fortune.
"Sorry, but the early Christians were willing to die rather than sign such "conscience clauses." Sad to see Target aspires to become Imperial Rome.
"
For pete's sake....nobody was asking her to die! Target is a business. It's privately-owned. They can have any legal requirement for employment they wish.
This drug is legal to dispense. Doctors prescribe it. Target may not stock it in all its stores, but it can legally require its employees to direct the customer to a store that does stock it.
She cannot accept that condition of employment, so she was terminated. She's still alive. She's still a pharmacist. She can apply for jobs at other places. Perhaps she'll find a pro-life pharmacy that doesn't dispense this drug, any contraceptives, and gives pro-life lectures to customers who want such things.
Oh, wait....that's not good business, is it? Well, maybe she won't find such a job. She can get a Small Business Administration loan, then, and start up her own pharmacy, I guess.
Force? The store does not sell the pills. It's not the pharmacists job to shop for the customer. There was no life/death situation here for the customer. The customer was free to go elsewhere, or did the pharmacist tie the woman up to the security bar at Target's front door to keep her there until the pill would no longer work?
My father was a pharmacist. He was also a small business owner. He had every right to stock whatever medicines he wanted. And if a customer did not like his service or the service of his employees, they could go elsewhere. No big deal. I doubt Target would lose a lot of customers over this one pharmacist refusing to sell a rarely requested pill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.